I despise cell phone use while driving....for me personally, as well as seeing others do it. I drive to work daily on an interstate. Five lanes....full of traffic...many days raining terribly (low visibility). And THIS is a fact.....I see at least three to four vehicles weaving left and right and/or not signaling when changing lanes. And what are they doing when I look into the vehicle? Texting or talking on a STUPID phone. And this is an even more concerning observation....MANY OF THOSE SWERVING left and right are using cells phones while driving SEMI- TRUCKS!! How can people be so brain dead? GET OFF THE PHONE while driving BEFORE you kill an innocent person. s far as officers of the law doing this while driving? I don't notice if they do....but pointing fingers at a few policeman is a distraction of the main issue.

Every state already has distracted driving laws on the books, why do we need another for using the phone? Everything is a potential distraction; passengers, eating, drinking coffee, billboards, an accident in the oncoming lane, a nice looking woman walking down the street...

I lived near a DQ that had a drive through, and I would always get some bozo that would pull out in front of me and do half the speed limit while swerving all over the place because he was too occupied stuffing his face with an ice cream cone to worry about driving.

I text while stopped at red lights but not while moving, and have Bluetooth in both my cars so I am never holding the phone while moving.

Thank you for your service. Yours is often a thankless job and you usually see the worst of humanity. Most citizens have no idea what a difficult job it can be.

Originally Posted By: dernp

I feel that cell phone use while driving is an epidemic and clearly constitutes distracted driving.

I couldn't agree more. I've never used the phone while driving. While I do have a cell phone, it's often turned off while I'm in the car. If it is turned on and happens to ring, I simply ignore it until such time as I'm at my destination. I'll then listen to the voice mail, and return the call if needed. There's nothing so important that it can't wait until I'm safely parked.

As someone who operates a motor vehicle I've agreed to abide by the rules and regulations regarding their safe operation. I also have an obligation to operate that vehicle in the safest possible manner; not only for myself but for other motorists. It's what I agreed to do when I first received my license and I have always tried to uphold my end of the bargain.

While I may not always agree with every rule or regulation, the way to change them is from within, not by being a scofflaw.

Originally Posted By: FowVay

haha,, this is classic. They require a 4 year degree yet the officer doesn't know the correct use of 'too' in his report. Amazing!

Coming from one who failed to start his sentence with a capital letter, used two commas after the first incorrect word in the sentence, and somehow managed to start a sentence with "haha" (hint-it isn't a real word), your comment rings rather hollow.

First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.

It's a huge bone of contention here in NY where I work (Westchester). Cops don't really wan't to give these tix out (for the most part) but it's crammed down our throats by Cuomo and his I wanna be president initiatives and the heavy backing from Ins. lobby (cell tix are points!!).

Cops are different in that most of us are veeery well accustomed to the wife on phone #1, girlfriend on line 2, running the rover to a call and hitting lights (and once in a great while, siren). AND like seat belt laws; often LE are exempt. Now, before the whole tirade about cops getting away with things; I'll have you know that for the most part the old blue wall of silence is GONE! We are whining babies who feel under appreciated and that the world owes us at minimum a deputy chief spot with a take home car. New erra of ME is in our ranks as well as everywhere else.

IMHO operating a cell and driving is most definitely a distraction but no where near what texting involves. That said these tasks are singled out and soooon enough nanny will strike again and you won't be able to eat and drive, put on make up (lets face it, lots of beauties out there need the makeup), heck lets take talk radio outa the car as well....makes my head think of the topic at hand not the road.

Guess I'm a little jaded here but the thrust behind most of these initiatives is revenue generation pure and simple. I'm an admin guy for over a decade and when dealing with town supervisor, city manager, various elected officials the first question is always: Do you wan't compliance or revenue? Think of speed zones when were the studies done to determine safe speeds? What vehicle technology was used? Has that maybe changed since then?

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 3530
Loc: Mobile. Not AL but on the roa...

Originally Posted By: Gabe

First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.

Op clearly stated that the law says even stopped at a light, so the driver was in violation.

Taking 15 seconds to pull over and call the child back would not strand the child.

First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.

Gabe, You bring to light a VERY important fact most just don't get. We really do not need new laws; we have plenty of laws currently on the books covering just about every possible human action. What we need is consistent enforcement of the laws without the push toward revenue. If gov't really wanted compliance not revenue penalties would not be monetary but more in line with 10 over speed limit license suspended for 5 days, etc...

First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.

Op clearly stated that the law says even stopped at a light, so the driver was in violation.

Taking 15 seconds to pull over and call the child back would not strand the child.

Pulling over is another whole issue with inherent dangers far eclipsing that of picking up the incoming call.

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 3530
Loc: Mobile. Not AL but on the roa...

Originally Posted By: BISCUT

Originally Posted By: Kuato

Originally Posted By: Gabe

First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.

Op clearly stated that the law says even stopped at a light, so the driver was in violation.

Taking 15 seconds to pull over and call the child back would not strand the child.

Pulling over is another whole issue with inherent dangers far eclipsing that of picking up the incoming call.

How so? As the driver you don't have to swerve over immediately, you can take your time and pick where you pull off the road, making sure it is safe for both you and others.

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 3530
Loc: Mobile. Not AL but on the roa...

Originally Posted By: BISCUT

Originally Posted By: Gabe

First off, the driver was STOPPED at a red light - not exactly a safety hazard.

Second, the driver's reasoning is valid - most young children don't have their own phones. If the driver didn't take that call, the child would have been stranded.

I have seen some really bad drivers with a cell phones, but I have seen some really bad drivers without one too. And the reason people choose to break that law: it is a stupid law. If somebody is driving reckless due to texting, then ticket them for reckless driving; don't make the 90% of people who use their cell phone responsibly into criminals.

Gabe, You bring to light a VERY important fact most just don't get. We really do not need new laws; we have plenty of laws currently on the books covering just about every possible human action. What we need is consistent enforcement of the laws without the push toward revenue. If gov't really wanted compliance not revenue penalties would not be monetary but more in line with 10 over speed limit license suspended for 5 days, etc...

I agree with you here; no need to add laws, simply amend distracted driving laws that are in place to include cellphone use. This has the added advantage of allowing for Officer Discretion, such as in the case of phone use while stopped, that the full ban does not.

I see few reasons to be on a handheld phone in a car. Medical emergency,calling a traffic accident. Otherwise pull off. Children were in school before cell phones existed what did we do before cell phones? Somehow we survived. Its funny the mentality of this. I can be in a waiting room or in a car with someone and my phone rings, I don't answer it. Invariably the person I'm with gets visibly nervous and finally asks do you need to take that? they are surprised when i say no, not really. Its a society conditioned response that phones MUST be answered right away.

The driver should thank you, next time he/she might kill an innocent person.

I hope you gave the driver the biggest ticket possible.

They should also ban blue tooth and hands free too, still causes distraction.

People are so important today that a second can't go by without them talking or texting, amazing. I wish I was that important.

This x100.

I salute you for pulling this person over, and I'm not surprised at all by their claim that the phone call was important. No phone call is more important than somebody's life. The person could have easily waited and pulled into a parking lot to call them back.

Phone use at a red light IS a safety hazard, especially when the light turns and the driver fails to notice.

I'm not sure why people are making comments about Police talking on the phone. That has nothing to do with this particular officer.